14421_Chapter6.pdf

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/14421chapter6pdf 1/26

6

The Role of InterculturalCommunicationCompetency in GlobalBusiness Negotiations

Global considerations impact everyday business decisions forcompanies large and small. Should we buy this component part

from a U. S. supplier, or consider sourcing outside the United States?

Where should we produce, market, and sell our products and services?

For most, it is a global market to consider. One only needs to examine

the current and projected growth of international trade to clearly see

the impact on our future.

Corporations are aware that to be successful in tomorrow’s mar-

ketplace requires employees to be competent in communicating with

those from other cultures. In the past, most international managers

relied on general cultural guidelines for conducting intercultural

153

❖ ❖ ❖

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 153

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


negotiations. However, the increase in global trade transactions has

resulted in integrated cultural exchanges, new cultural partnerships,

and unique cultural interactions, making old, superficial generalitiesless accurate. One effect of increasing multicultural interactions is a

change in homogenous cultures or, indeed, nations. A new culture of

world trade is born. Research offered to explain communication based

on cultural generalities is helpful but quickly becoming dated and

insufficient for providing guidelines for negotiating with other cul-

tures. As discussed in previous chapters, culture is defined by most as

socially transmitted beliefs, values, behavioral patterns, norms, and

rituals that are shared by a large group of people or a community (Cai,

Wilson, & Drake, 2000; Hofstede, 1980; Salacuse, 1991). Communi-

cating interculturally is the process whereby individuals from different

cultures attempt to exchange information and interpret or understand

the other person. We propose in this chapter that successful intercul-

tural negotiation is not only influenced by an understanding of general

cultural knowledge, but also, and more important, by the negotiators’

competency in intercultural communication.

This chapter examines intercultural communication competency

(ICC) in geocentric business negotiations. We present key components

of ICC specific to the success of intercultural business transactions.

An examination of how these key components specifically affect global business negotiations is included. We also offer 12 guidelines for enhanc-

ing communicative behavior in intercultural business negotiations.

OVERVIEW OF INTERCULTURAL

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCY

Intercultural communication competency grew out of the interpersonal

communication competency research. The contextual distinctiveness of the intercultural interaction is a unique communication competency

issue. It is possible that an individual may be highly competent in com-

municating with others in his or her own culture but not competent

when interacting with others who are culturally different. In the past

decade, numerous books, articles, and papers have been published on

intercultural competency (Gudykunst, 2005; Hampden-Turner &

Trompenaars, 2000; Landis, Bennett, & Bennett, 2004).

To understand ICC, we first take a brief look at communication

competency in general. Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) define communi-

cation competency as the ability to achieve your goals while you fulfillrelational and situational expectations (as cited in Cupach & Canary,

154 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 154

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


1997). Spitzberg and Cupach contend that communication competency

is primarily comprised of two dimensions, appropriateness (meeting

social expectations and social rules) and effectiveness (achieving one’sgoals). Although the previous communication competency research is

helpful (Cupach & Canary, 1997; Snavely & Walters, 1983; Wiemann,

1977), it is predominantly restricted to general intracultural settings

and is not specific to global negotiation. Thus, a void remained in

explaining intercultural negotiation for business transactions.

Understanding the individual’s role in ICC has gained the attention

of several researchers (Gudykunst, 1998; Ting-Toomey, 1988). The focus

of ICC has remained in the forefront for understanding intercultural rela-

tionships. Questions concerning how to be effective in our messages

with others outside our cultural boundaries led to the development of

intercultural communication competency. Gudykunst as well as others

(Klopf, 2001; Ting-Toomey, 1988) have given us a framework for examin-

ing the role that general cultural dimensions play in the communication

process. Gudykunst, in his 1998 book titled Bridging Differences: Effective

Intergroup Communication, concludes that “culture influences our com-

munication and our communication influences our cultures” (p. 44).

Therefore, an individual’s ICC is important in providing communication

guidelines for how specific cultures and nations talk. Neither cultural

level of competency nor the individual level of competency is adequateto reflect the new multicultural phenomena occurring in our global mar-

ket. Therefore, a richer understanding of global negotiation will result

from an integrative approach (individual factors and cultural factors).

Thus, viewing ICC in business negotiations offers important perspec-

tives for the new global market.

Negotiator communication competency is essential for under-

standing the role that communication plays in global business nego-

tiations. The benefits of moving from a cultural generality model to

a geocentric model that includes the individual negotiators’ ICC isgreatly beneficial for several reasons.

First, negotiators stand their best chance of reaching an optimal

agreement when the parties are able to engage in creative problem solv-

ing (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991). This problem-solving process often

requires the parties to negotiate face to face (or in a dyadic context) and

thus is a relational, context-based process in which sensitivity to the

recipient’s interpretation of a message is essential for shared meaning.

Second, unlike other contextually based communication competency

(e.g., classroom), global negotiations are heavily reliant upon the devel-

opment of the parties’ relationship. Therefore, examining global negoti-ations from a communication competency framework incorporates the

The Role of Intercultural Communication Competency 155

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 155

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


development of the relationship through the dynamics of communica-

tion interactions. Finally, a communication competency approach offers

an excellent foundation for building a more advanced model of howcommunication competency occurs during conflict episodes in the

intercultural negotiation setting.

The nature of constructive conflict interactions requires that parties

act in a highly appropriate and effective manner if they are to move

beyond the point of conflict. For example, at conflict points in the nego-

tiation process, it is essential to maintain face and provide face-saving

gestures so that there are opportunities for parties to continue engag-

ing in the negotiation process. The relationship of the negotiating par-

ties is tested during conflict episodes, and it is often the face-to-face

communication that frames the opportunities for further relationship

development or the destruction of the relationship.

Thus, examining global negotiation and the role of ICC provides

an excellent foundation for investigating the dynamics of success in

global negotiation. Spitzberg and Cupach argue that ICC can be

explained as appropriateness and effectiveness with more emphasis on

contextual factors. We argue that appropriateness and effectiveness

operate at the basic level for understanding ICC, but other factors must

be included to fully understand ICC in geocentric negotiations.

We now turn to a more in-depth look at what factors influence ICCin global business negotiation. The key components for developing

ICC in geocentric business negotiations are appropriateness, effective-

ness, anxiety reduction, adaptation, face honoring and protection,

sensitivity and empathy, mindfulness and presence, and knowledge.

These components are discussed in the next section.

Key Components of InterculturalCommunication Competency (ICC)

• Appropriateness

• Effectiveness

• Anxiety Reduction

• Adaptation

• Face Honoring and Protection

• Sensitivity and Empathy

• Mindfulness and Presence

• Knowledge

156 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 156

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


1. Appropriateness

Appropriateness is the ability to communicate with someone in a

socially sensitive manner so as not to offend or break any rules that

would result in insult, face threat, or rudeness. Communication appro-

priateness involves considering a variety of strategies and the commu-

nication constraints that exist within a specific communication context.

Message selection and strategy for communicating are guided by these

constraints, or rules. Embedded in the cultural norms and rules is the

appropriateness of certain types of behaviors and the manner in which

we communicate. Philipsen’s (1992, 1997) speech codes theory posits

that in order to understand communication, one must understand the

cultural speech codes (“a system of socially-constructed symbols andmeanings, premises, and rules, pertaining to communicative conduct”)

(Philipsen, 1997, p. 126). The socially constructed symbols and meanings

are culturally distinctive codes for interpreting and explaining intercul-

tural communication. Therefore, when communicating in the interna-

tional business negotiation context, one must consider the norms, rules,

and expectations and how these are determined by an accumulation of

culture and regional or subculture, organizational culture, and individ-

ual personality, as well as any previous negotiation experiences.

The international business negotiation context has specific con-straints that should be considered in appropriate message selection.

For example, global business negotiations typically entail procedural

rules or guidelines offered to facilitate agreement. Parks (1985) states,

Competent communicators have a vested interest in maintaining

the rules of social conduct because they realize, however dimly,

that their ability to pursue their own goals depends on the free-

dom of others to pursue their goals. Personal control, then, is more

often an ally of social appropriateness than its enemy. (p. 197)

Thus, it is important for the global business negotiator to keep in

mind how the negotiation process (e.g., structural and procedural

issues) is conducted. Also important are the type of business, the

parties’ relationship, the organizational culture (bureaucratic, lateral,

highly structured, informal, etc.), individual style (argumentative,

assertive, or passive), the position or role of the negotiator (buyer or

seller), and the specific issues of the negotiation as guidelines for appro-

priate strategy selection. The appropriateness component of becoming

a competent communicator in the global market is interrelated to otherICC factors discussed in the following paragraphs.


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 157

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


2. Effectiveness

How we “effectively” achieve our goals is a vital part of the global

business negotiation. Spitzberg and Cupach (1989) defined effective-

ness as “successful goal achievement or accomplishment” (p. 7). How

we attempt to reach effectiveness is related to our ability to maximize

our rewards and minimize our costs. Effectiveness is the ability to

achieve your goals through the communication process. Specifically, an

individual must be able to maximize his or her potential for achieving

his or her goals by selecting strategies that will allow the individual to

achieve his or her success through interaction. Effective strategy selec-

tion is critical for clear communication in intercultural settings. M. Kim

(1994) argues that strategic competency entails a person’s ability toselect an effective message that allows the other party to derive the

intended meaning. However, Kim and Wilson (1994) conclude that

“different cultural groups have drastically different ideas about what

constitutes an effective strategy” (p. 229). Thus, any discussion of effec-

tiveness must consider that cultural perspectives influence the strategy

choice and perception of the effectiveness of that strategy.

Western cultures generally view efficiency, or time required to

reach an agreement, as an important consideration in measuring effec-

tiveness. However, this may not hold true for other cultures or individ-uals who do not share the same value of time.

For example, Schmidt Corporation, a manufacturing company

headquartered in Germany, wants to obtain a contractual agreement to

buy plastics from Paranhos Incorporated, headquartered in Brazil.

Schmidt Corporation’s negotiator, Ms. Gausser, is under a deadline to

go to Brazil to meet with someone from Paranhos and be back home in

time to meet with alternative vendors if she cannot reach an agreement

with Paranhos Corporation. Ms. Gausser’s time line, or what she con-

siders to be efficient use of her time, is one week (based on how she

usually conducts business). However, Paranhos Corporation’s negotia-tor, Mr. de Aveiro, thinks that effective agreement has a time line of

around 3 months (based on how he usually conducts negotiations).

Mr. de Aveiro’s goals for the meeting are to begin a relationship with

Schmidt Corporation and Ms. Gausser, spend time getting to know

each other and understand the other party’s company, as well as show

Ms. Gausser some of the culture and history of his country.

Goal attainment is not likely to be achieved for either negotiator

because their perception of effective use of time is very different. This

situation requires each negotiator to acquire an understanding of the other party’s values and sense of business in order for either to be

158 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 158

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


effective in achieving his or her goals. More than likely, each will leave

dissatisfied, and a business opportunity may be lost.

There have been several studies that reveal specific cultural differ-ences in interpreting effectiveness. For example, Kim and Wilson’s

(1994) study of cross-cultural request strategies revealed a difference

between Americans’ and Koreans’ rating of effective strategy. They

found that Americans rated direct statement requests as the most effec-

tive strategy, whereas Koreans rated it the least effective strategy. Thus,

a global business negotiator must be sensitive to others’ value of cer-

tain strategies as he or she attempts to succeed in reaching agreement.

3. Anxiety and Uncertainty Reduction

Uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) suggests

that we are likely to experience uncertainty about communicating with

another individual, especially when we are unable to predict or explain

a stranger’s behaviors. This uncertainty (both predictive uncertainty

and explanatory uncertainty), according to Gudykunst, results when

we are interacting with someone different from us. Uncertainty hinders

the quantity and quality of communication. The nature of international

business transactions creates just this type of situation. When we arenot able to predict the other’s behaviors or attitudes (predictive uncer-

tainty) and we are uncertain how to explain the other’s behaviors

(explanatory uncertainty), we experience high uncertainty and anxiety.

The less certain we are about another individual’s behaviors, the more

anxious we are. The fast pace of the international market requires nego-

tiators to tread into unfamiliar environments with little predictive

knowledge of another’s negotiation behavior. Anxiety and uncertainty

are often reported when new markets open and new relationships

must be established. However, it is also possible in international trade

that the negotiator may become anxious about the other negotiator because he or she is aware of the other party’s entrenched position.

This anxiety based on known differences may cause the negotiator to

become uncertain of how to communicate most effectively to achieve a

positive outcome. In both experiences, the anxiety is related to our feel-

ings and uncertainty is related to our cognitive processing ability.

Gudykunst posits that we have “thresholds of uncertainty.”

If our uncertainty is below our minimum threshold level, we will

interact with strangers with a great deal of confidence (Gudykunst,

1998). Typically, when our uncertainty is below the threshold level, weact and believe that we can predict the other person’s behavior and are


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 159

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


in control of the interaction. When dealing with other cultures, this

assumption is likely to result in misinterpretations, or worse, commu-

nication mistakes, such as face-threatening or insulting behavior. In thecase of intercultural business negotiations, this can be devastating to

the negotiation process, possibly resulting in a failure to reach agree-

ment and an adverse effect on the relationship. The awareness or mind-

fulness of others in the communication process is lost (because we are

assuming little attention is needed to communicate with the other), and

the negotiator may be perceived as disinterested in the other party or

even perhaps as exhibiting dislike or disdain for the other.

If uncertainty is above the maximum threshold level, Gudykunst

argues we will not want to communicate with the stranger (or opposi-

tional negotiator). The ideal range of uncertainty for communicating

with someone from a different culture falls between the minimum and

maximum threshold levels of uncertainty. Communicating in this range

allows us to experience enough uncertainty to be motivated and open

to new information about the other person with a level of comfort.

The anxiety we experience is related to our level of uncertainty.

One way to evaluate our anxiety is to be cognizant of our physiologi-

cal reactions, such as butterflies in our stomach, headache, sweaty

hands, shortness of breath, or general nervousness. The issue for

successful negotiation in the global business negotiation is being inthe range of minimum to maximum threshold of uncertainty/anxiety.

Similar to speech-making and test-taking experiences, having a certain

amount of uneasiness and anxiety may increase performance.

Determining your own level of uncertainty and anxiety requires you to

be aware of your own threshold levels. Perhaps the easiest method for

determining threshold is through your physiological state. A few but-

terflies in your stomach increases your ICC, while none or too many

decrease your ICC effectiveness. The trick is getting all the butterflies

to go in the same direction.

4. Adaptation Component

Adaptation is often referred to as the adjustment to a new or unfa-

miliar situation or setting. Cultural adaptation occurs when one is will-

ing to accept another culture’s customs or worldview. Bennett and

Bennett (2004) argue that “adaptation occurs when we need to think or

act outside of our own cultural context” (p. 156). Adaptability is often

referred to as behavioral flexibility (Bochner & Kelly, 1974; Spitzberg &

Cupach, 1989). Having a diverse behavioral repertoire and knowing whento use it is key to adaptability in new situations. In addition, the authors

160 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 160

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


contend that by taking the perspective of the other person, we can begin

to feel and construct our identity from their viewpoint. This newly

developed identity is an initial step in the integration process, whichKim discusses in her intercultural communication model.

Y. Kim’s work that began in 1991 presents a model of ICC focusing

on the immigrant and the acculturation of the immigrant to the new host

culture. The idea that one must “adapt, adjust, or integrate” into the new

cultural ways is essential for ICC. Although our focus is on a sojourner’s

approach to the intercultural interaction, within the negotiation context,

Kim’s principles of adaptation and integration are important in the

development of long-term negotiation relationships (Kim, 2001).

The global marketplace requires us to think beyond the short-term

outcome to the development of long-term relationships and even part-

nerships for survival in the global business community. The develop-

ment of a “third culture” effect is highly likely if negotiating parties

adapt and integrate their cultures’ identities. This shift in identity

happens over a period of successful and not-so-successful interactions

in negotiation. As Neuliep (2003) suggests, intercultural competence

means adapting verbal and nonverbal messages to the appropriate

cultural context. As a result of this mutual adaptation in communication

behavior, parties can then move to a discussion that reflects a transac-

tional communication process that creates the third-culture phenome-non. As the business world becomes more sophisticated in adaptation

and eventually integration, we would expect to see a transformation of

how people conduct business in the global market. Perhaps the blur-

ring of culture will result in a truly geocentric identity.

5. Face Honoring and Protection

Dignity and respect are all too often missing from business negoti-

ations. Yet we know that human beings respond positively to others

who demonstrate a positive regard for themselves and an appreciation

for differences. Goffman (1959) introduced face as the wish to have a

positive social impression on others. Face embodies the concept that

individuals want to have others view them with respect and dignity.

Facework is the behaviors and strategies we engage in to establish a

positive face. Face and facework are two distinct concepts. Face is the

individual’s desire for a favorable impression, whereas facework is the

“specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors that we engage in to maintain

or restore face loss and to uphold and honor face gain” (Ting-Toomey,

2005, p. 73). The concept of face means different things depending onone’s culture. For example, in China there are two types of face. There


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 161

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


is lian (face), defined by Hu (1944) as “representing the confidence of

society in the integrity of ego’s moral character, the loss of which makes

it impossible for him to function properly within the community”(p. 45). The second type of face in China is referred to as mian or mian zi

(image), which means the status or prestige one receives for success in

life (Hu, 1944; Oetzel et al., 2001). In every culture, face is considered an

important factor in communicating with others. The degree of impor-

tance and the distinctive forms of face vary among cultures. For

example, Japan has two types of face, mentsu (social status success) and

taimen (self-presentation to others) (Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994). Part

of face for all cultures is associated with one’s honor, respect, and social

interactions.

There are generally three orientations of face behavior: self-face

(concern for one’s own image), other face (concern for another person’s

image), and mutual face (concern for both self and other’s image) (Ting-

Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Cultures vary in the level of importance they

place in preserving these concerns. For example, in the United States,

communication is typically more from a self-face concern, whereas in

Mexico and Japan, communication focus tends to be from an other-face

or mutual-face concern. It is important not only to consider what face

concern one typically has, but also what one expects others to demon-

strate. Clearly, one’s orientation toward face, as well as the context inwhich the communication occurs, affects the strategies for issues relat-

ing to face. Let us take a closer examination of face strategies that nego-

tiators may engage in during a global business negotiation.

Types of Face Strategies

Inherent in every interaction is face. We propose that there are three

critical face strategies to consider in global business negotiation: face-

protection strategies, face-threatening strategies, and face-renovation strategies.There are two types of face-protection strategies: protection of one’s

own face and protection for another’s face. Self-protection face is

reflected in messages that allow for one to defend or preserve his or her

image to avoid any damage to face. Other-face protection strategies are

messages that bolster the other’s competency or trustworthiness to pre-

vent damage to the other’s face. Examples of such messages include

deflections of embarrassment or shame from the other, providing ratio-

nale or justification in the circumstances, or pretending the incident

didn’t occur.

Face-threatening strategies entail attacking the other person’simage. Often this occurs as an attempt to defend oneself when one

perceives another acting aggressively, trying to dominate in order to

162 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 162

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


exert more power, or trying to discredit one (e.g., saying something to

make you look incompetent or dishonest). Face-threatening strategies

are similar to Wilson and Putnam’s (1990) face-attacking need. Facethreatening includes not only verbal messages but also the role silence

(invalidation) plays in threatening face. Silence as a face-threatening

situation occurs quite often in the U.S. culture. For example, Ms.

Tompkin, a negotiator for a food distribution company, is meeting with

Mr. Jones and his sales team to renegotiate a contract agreement for the

upcoming year. Ms. Tompkin is unhappy with the quality of service

she has received from Mr. Jones. The meeting begins with Mr. Jones

asking, “Haven’t I done a great job of providing you with on-time

deliveries?” Instead of responding to Mr. Jones’s question, Ms. Tompkin

remains silent. This silence in the U.S. business culture is viewed as

embarrassment, or a way of devaluing Mr. Jones.

Face-renovation strategies are used when damage to one’s face has

already occurred and credibility and trust must be restored. Face reno-

vation is also self and other oriented. That is, one can engage in self-

face renovation by engaging in behaviors that others perceive as honest

and competent. It is also possible to restore another’s face by providing

arguments or information that increases the other’s credibility and sin-

cerity or by using humor to deflect an embarrassing moment. Cupach

and Imahori (1993) caution that humor is sensitive to one’s culture andtherefore requires care in its application. Even if a negotiator believes

he or she has a sense of what is viewed as humorous in a specific

culture, it is necessary to consider the individual differences in accept-

able humor. Humor is typically revealed over a period of time as one

develops a relationship with another person. We suggest relationship

development becomes a key factor in how humorous attempts are

interpreted—as face-attacking insults or laughable moments.

Face renovation allows for repair of damaged face to occur so that

communication can continue in the intercultural relationship. Forexample, in self-face renovation, a negotiator may have a person who

is highly respected by the other party speak on his behalf. Here is an

example of other-face renovation. Assume the other’s face has been

damaged; perhaps he was caught in a dishonest statement. The other

negotiator offers a reasonable explanation for his statement and sug-

gests that it must all be a misunderstanding because the other is above

reproach. Another tactic might be to cover his deception with another

lie. For example, Negotiator Jim claims that your partner, Ted, has

already agreed to buy his bolts for 2 million dollars. Just then, Ted

walks in and hears this statement. Both Jim and Ted realize that theclaim is untrue. However, Ted offers other-face renovation by stating,

“I can’t keep that agreement; can we discuss the price further?” Both


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 163

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


parties know there was no agreement on price. However, by offering a

face renovation, the parties are able to continue the negotiation without

long-term damage. In fact, the relationship may be enhanced by theface-renovation gesture made by Ted. In cultures where face is very

important and face damage has long-term effects, face renovation is an

important strategy to have available.

Face-Negotiation Theory

Ting-Toomey’s conflict face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey,

1985, 1988, 2004, 2005; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998) makes an impor-

tant contribution to understanding face in intercultural interaction.

The significance of her contribution to face is important for our under-standing of global business negotiations and therefore is briefly described

in the following paragraphs.

This theory presents an integrative view of face negotiation, con-

flict, and culture (conflict face-negotiation theory; see Ting-Toomey,

2005). The seven core propositions follow.

164 CHAPTER 6

1. People in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all commu-

nication situations.

2. The concept of face is especially problematic in emotionally vulnerable

situations (such as embarrassment, request, or conflict situations) when

the situation identities of the communicators are called into question.

3. The cultural variability dimensions of individualism-collectivism and

small/large power distance shape the orientations, movements, con-

tents, and styles of facework.

4. Individualism-collectivism shapes members’ preferences for self-

oriented facework versus other-oriented facework.

5. Small/large power distance shapes members’ preferences for horizontal-

based facework versus vertical-based facework.

6. The cultural variability dimensions, in conjunction with individual,

relational, and situational factors influence the use of particular face-

work behaviors in particular cultural scenes.

7. Intercultural facework competence refers to the optimal integration of

knowledge, mindfulness, and communication skills in managing vul-

nerable identity-based conflict situations appropriately, effectively, and

adaptively.

SOURCE: From Ting-Toomey, S. (2005).

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 164

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


These general theorems lay the framework for how face and face-

work strategies can help those who are intercultural negotiators.

Culture and communication are intertwined, and face is always pre-sent in the communication process regardless of the issue. Within these

propositions advanced by Ting-Toomey lie guidelines for international

negotiators, especially when conflict arises.

In conflict situations such as negotiating a contract for x number of

goods or services between intercultural parties, face may be an integral

part of the outcome. Negotiators must examine the role that face plays

in their culture, the rules of appropriateness for face and preserving the

other’s face, the strategies that are likely to be used by one’s self and

the other party (individualistic versus collectivistic), as well as the con-

ditions surrounding the negotiation episode. In addition, Ting-Toomey

presents intercultural facework competence. Inclusive in her presenta-

tion of facework competence is the appropriateness, effectiveness, and

adaptive (adaptability) behavior in intercultural conflictual situations

(such as negotiations).

Following is a brief summary of Ting-Toomey’s research comparing

individualistic and collectivistic cultures. These have been paraphrased.

Individualistic cultures when compared to collectivistic cultures

tend to

• express more self-maintenance concerns;

• use more direct, dominating facework strategies;

• use more dominating/competing conflict styles;

• use more emotionally expressive conflict styles; and

• use more assertive to aggressive conflict styles.

Collectivistic cultures compared to individualistic cultures tend to

• express more other-face concerns;

• express more mutual-face maintenance concerns;

• use more avoidance facework strategies;• use a greater degree of integrative facework strategies;

• use more avoiding conflict styles;

• use more obliging conflict styles; and

• use more compromising to integrating conflict styles.

SOURCE: From Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiationtheory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication. Reprinted withpermission of Sage Publications, Inc.

6. Sensitivity and EmpathyWhat does it mean to be a sensitive, empathetic individual in the

intercultural interaction? We all like those who make us feel listened to,


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 165

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


validated, and understood, and we dislike those who pretend to

understand. Bennett and Bennett (2004) offer in their model of devel-

opment of intercultural sensitivity that, “as one’s experience of culturaldifference becomes more sophisticated, one’s competence in intercul-

tural relations increases” (p. 152). We develop cognitively as well as

behaviorally into a sensitivity of cultures that moves beyond our eth-

nocentric perspective of viewing others into an integrated view of oth-

ers and self. This cannot be achieved by acquiring general knowledge

about cultural generalities or by personal experience alone. Rather,

competency is a result of a new cognitive structure that is authentic and

global. The process of reframing one’s perspective may lead to a global

identity, thus creating a better opportunity for successful communica-

tion in the international business negotiation.

Empathy is an affective feeling. You can teach people to act empa-

thetic but not to feel empathy. One way to enhance our ability to feel

empathy toward other cultures is developing a physiologically connec-

tion. Bennett and Castiglioni (2004) suggest that to be interculturally

communication competent, we need to know cognitively about another

culture and generate the feeling for the other culture. They suggest,

“With that feeling, behavior appropriate in the other cultural context can

flow naturally from our embodied experience, just as it does in our own

culture” (p. 260). By opening ourselves up to our feelings and allowingourselves to experience what represents the other’s cultural experiences,

we are likely to gain valuable knowledge on how others different from

us experience or feel life. This affective phenomenon provides opportu-

nities in negotiation for enlightenment and recognition (Bush & Folger,

1994), which ultimately lead to transformative agreements.

Sometimes individuals experience a great sense of difference from

the other person and their culture. This experience can result in “cul-

ture shock.” Empathy, as Redmond (2000) reported, increased the indi-

viduals’ intensity of culture shock because they could recognize thedifferences between themselves and the other culture. A highly sensi-

tive individual may have a culture shock response, but over time, the

empathy may result in a much richer understanding and multilevel

identity for the individual.

For example, Ms. Rudolph from England is negotiating with

Mr. Yawlan from a small village in Zimbabwe. Ms. Rudolph arrives in

the village, where she is to negotiate the mining of diamonds. She

notices that around noon, everyone quits working and walks to an area

outside the village. She assumes there must be some daily ritual that

she is unfamiliar with. Ms. Rudolph mentions that to Mr. Yawlan, andMr. Yawlan explains that the community members are going to bury

166 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 166

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


their dead. Ms. Rudolph comments, “But I see this every day!” Mr.

Yawlan simply responds with, “Yes, people are dying daily here from

disease and malnutrition.” Ms. Rudolph feels a true sense of the livingtragedy that her business associate experiences regularly. Her response

to this sense of overwhelming sadness may be a sense of isolation, guilt

for her wealthy culture, detachment, or confusion by the way the vil-

lage continues to function. These may all be signs of culture shock. Her

sensitivity and empathy toward the village people may have intensified

her view of the differences between her culture and theirs. However,

this same sensitivity can make her a more competent communicator

because of her heightened sense of awareness and authenticity or gen-

uine connection to their grief.

The relationship that develops between Ms. Rudolph and

Mr. Yawlan is in part a result of Ms. Rudolph’s sensitivity and ability to

empathize with Mr. Yawlan. The business relationship is enriched by her

empathetic and sensitive communication about Mr. Yawlan’s world that

extends beyond the substantive issues. The end result is that a richer,

culturally sensitive relationship may have emerged for both parties.

7. Mindfulness or Being Present

Mindfulness is a key factor in becoming interculturally communica-tion competent (Langer, 1989; Ting-Toomey, 1999). Mindfulness, as

described by Langer (1989), involves developing new categories, being

open to new information, and being more aware of others’ perspectives

(p. 62). The Chinese word ting refers to “listening with your ears, eyes

and one heart” (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998, p. 204); this may best

describe what we refer to as being mindful and present. Being able to

imagine new solutions and reach creative agreements is essential in

global business negotiations. Focusing on opportunities to see someone

differently, or a willingness to think beyond the past roadblocks, requiresnegotiators to be present in the moments of the conversation. The nego-

tiator must rely not on past scripts to get them to resolution but rather

moments of creativity that are developed through mindful acts and

thoughts. Bush and Folger (1994) describe this as transformative conflict

resolution.

Ting-Toomey suggests engaging in “mindful reframing” as a strat-

egy for managing skill in conflict resolution. She suggests that negotia-

tors must be able to translate the other party’s verbal and nonverbal

messages from their cultural standpoint. Furthermore, acquiring the

skill to listen during a conflict to the other party in a mindful andnon-evaluative manner is important. This requires an individual to be


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 167

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


attentive to underlying assumptions that are occurring during the

interaction.

The concept of mindfulness is relatively new to Westerners, butmany Eastern cultures embrace mindfulness as part of their cognitive

practice in communicating with others. We have used the words be pre-

sent in communicating and negotiating with others. Oftentimes we are

thinking ahead to the next point we want to make or what strategy we

will use, or we are even evaluating the individual’s clothes instead of

listening to the words and watching the expressions on the other

party’s face. Being present requires us to not think about ourselves, nor

to be distracted by external psychological or environmental noises, but

rather to search for meaning and commonness with the other person.

The mindfulness of communication is choosing language that has

taken into consideration the other person’s culture, interacting with a

multicultural identity, and embracing opportunities to act verbally and

nonverbally in a reciprocal and thoughtful way. Mindfulness and pres-

ence are essential parts of the global business negotiation and are criti-

cal for creative and competent global business negotiators.

8. Knowledge

Knowledge about the other person’s culture is a critical componentof ICC. To truly share in meaningful discourse in intercultural negotia-

tions, we must have knowledge about the other’s religion, customs,

values, language, and linguistic and politeness strategies. Competency

is not simply learning a foreign language. One must have an under-

standing of how language is used to facilitate meaning appropriately.

In addition, languages vary in terms of the amount of variation avail-

able to show respect and politeness (Dolinina & Cecchetto, 1998). For

example, English has few grammatical mechanisms for differentiating

status, whereas Japanese has several grammatical structures for com-

municating politeness in regards to inequity, status, and power.

Hazleton and Cupach (1986) conclude that we need to have knowledge

about a variety of areas. For example, they suggest that ICC is more

likely to occur if we know (a) what communication strategies will lead

to achieving our goals, (b) the rules that govern the appropriateness of

messages in the specific context, (c) the possible consequences that

might occur if we deviate from the rules, and (d) how to create mean-

ingful messages given the other’s cultural perspective.

There are several different but related types of knowledge that aid

in the development of ICC in global negotiations. First, Hazelton andCupach present linguistic knowledge (Chen & Starosta, 1996, referred to

168 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 168

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


as linguistic competency), which is concerned with how cultures assem-

ble their messages, how they grammatically construct their sentences,

and the degree to which the word provides the meaning. Second, know-ing how and when to speak and how to read, and being able to mind-

fully listen and understand the other culture’s language is another

important aspect (Redmond, 2000). Research has shown that fluency in

speaking the other party’s language is important in effective communi-

cation (Martin & Hammer, 1989; Ting-Toomey & Korzenny, 1989).

A third important level of knowledge is ontological knowledge

(Hazelton & Cupach, 1986). They describe ontological knowledge as

being “reflected in communicators’ ability to describe, predict, and

explain human behavior” (p. 120). The way in which we know some-

thing is reflected is our view of reality. This level of knowledge has to

do with the interpretation level of meaning. For example, cultures vary

in their conceptualization of communication competency. In Asian cul-

tures such as China, creating harmony is viewed as a key element in

competently communicating. In Korea, communication competency is

the ability to express messages indirectly and transcendentally (Chen

& Starosta, 1996).

A fourth type of knowledge is knowledge about the business nego-

tiation process. One has to understand the construction of the negotia-

tion within a given culture. Both the structure and the process forinteracting in the negotiation are relevant information for successful

interactions, especially during international business transactions.

For example, when purchasing a basket in Mexico, it is expected

that the negotiation process occurs something like this:

Person A: How much for the basket?

Person B: (always ask more than you want) $200.

Person A: (always counteroffer) Oh, would you be willing to take $50?

Person A: Oh, I cannot do that. It is a one of a kind. How about $150?

Person B: ( you want to provide some face saving but not give him the

price) I will give you $75.

Person A: I cannot sell it for that.

Person B: (walks away)

Person A: ( yells) Okay! I will give it to you for $100.Person B: (comes back to A and buys the basket for $100)


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 169

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


This same business transaction would follow a very different

process were it to happen in a U.S. shopping mall. The negotiation

would be like this.

Person A: How much for the basket?

Person B: Let’s see, is the price marked? Oh, here it is: $200.

Person A: Will this basket go on sale anytime soon?

Person B: No, but if you open a credit card account, I can give you

15 percent off today.

Person A: Okay. What do I need to do?

The important difference between the two examples is that the first

relies heavily on the relationship aspect of negotiating. The price isn’t

marked and the communication strategy influences the interaction that

ultimately leads to the purchase. The second example is based on the

substantive issue of price. The price marked ahead of time is the basis for

the negotiation. The relationship (e.g., the credit card) only becomes a

possible influencing factor if the price is not acceptable. Thus, if one tries

to negotiate in the second example by using the strategies employed in

the first, it is highly unlikely that the store clerk would call out to the cus-tomer who is unwilling to pay the marked price. A negotiator who can

successfully negotiate in either cultural setting is more interculturally

competent because he or she has the knowledge about the different cul-

tural communication norms and he or she has the repertoire of strategies

from which to select. Furthermore, he or she has the ontological knowl-

edge of human behavior. This, coupled with knowledge of the business

negotiation process of the cultural context, leads him or her to achieve

his or her goal—buying the basket.

Assessing Competency

There has been a great deal of discussion on assessing communica-

tion competency. Some scholars have contended that communication

competency is a trait (McCroskey, 1984) and can best be assessed by self-

report measures. For example, in a study that used a self-assessment

measure of competency, Swedes were higher in competency than

Americans (McCroskey, Burroughs, Daun, & Richmond, 1990). Others

argue that communication competency is situation based and must be

judged from the receiver’s perspective (Rubin, 1982). Others present an

170 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 170

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


interactional approach suggesting that communication competency is

a product of both trait and situation.

We contend that ICC is influenced by individual predispositionalfactors (e.g., communication apprehension, argumentativeness, etc.).

However, more important is the negotiator’s specific knowledge, skill,

and motivation (Rubin, 1985; Spitzberg, 1983) for communicating inter-

nationally. Knowledge, skill, and motivation are necessary criteria

for ICC. Communication norms are culture-bound, and therefore com-

petency is a function of culture and it is how we are evaluated in the

interaction that ultimately determines ICC. As Phillips comments,

“‘competence’ is not a ‘thing.’ It is an evaluation” (1983, p. 25). We

now turn to how these components lead to communication competent

negotiators.

To be a competent intercultural communicator requires knowledge

and performance or, put another way, cognitive ability as well as skill.

Without knowledge (e.g., linguistic, ontological, cultural, negotiation),

skill (e.g., appropriate and effective strategy selection, empathic listen-

ing), or motivation (e.g., uncertainty, communication apprehension),

communication competency is not likely to be achieved. For example,

Mr. Dufour, buyer for ATI Electronique Company based in France, is

going to meet with Mr. Lee, a seller from Delphi Corporation, based in

South Korea. Mr. Lee has knowledge about the French culture andabout ATI Electronique’s organizational culture, goals, and manage-

ment style, and he speaks fluent French. He considers himself well pre-

pared and appears motivated to negotiate with Mr. Dufour. It appears

that Mr. Lee is communication competent for this meeting (at least on

the cognitive dimension of communication competency).

However, Mr. Lee is very anxious or has a high degree of uncer-

tainty about meeting with someone different from himself. He is feeling

more anxious than usual because he has heard that Mr. Dufour does not

“fit” the cultural generalities of the French businessperson. This createsa skill deficiency in Mr. Lee’s communication competency because his

anxiety reduces his motivation and affects his ability to communicate

competently. Therefore, although Mr. Lee is knowledgeable and appears

motivated to negotiate, his competency in this intercultural business

negotiation is compromised because of his high level of anxiety.

We could easily have adjusted this example to reflect knowledge as

the deficient factor and the results would be the same. The key to suc-

cessful ICC is that one must be motivated, knowledgeable, and skilled

to be a successful and competent communicator in the global market-

place. These three general factors are interrelated in that a deficiency in


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 171

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


one impacts at least one of the other components. The deficiency

reduces the likelihood of achieving a high level of ICC. Spitzberg

(1991b) points out in his model of interpersonal communication com-petency that there is an additive effect of these three factors, resulting

in “communication satisfaction, perceived confirmation, and conversa-

tional appropriateness and effectiveness” (p. 22).

CONCLUSION

We propose that communication competency in the intercultural busi-

ness negotiation context is influenced by communication abilities, cul-

ture of origin, importance of the negotiation relationship, knowledge of

other cultures reflected in the global business community, and the

motivation and skills to negotiate. In addition, highly competent nego-

tiators will possess a multicultural knowledge base that they embrace

as part of their identity. This restructuring of how they view them-

selves and others results in a multicultural identity. This multicultural

identity as described by Bennett and Bennett is a result of cognitive

restructuring, which leads to an integration stage in cultural sensitivity.

The “appropriateness” of the communicative message is highly

influenced by the cultural rules and norms. It is essential that the inter-national negotiator have the cultural knowledge about the other party

as well as knowledge about the other party’s individual communica-

tion style to communicate in an appropriate manner. Remember, it is

the combination of cultural knowledge plus individual knowledge that

optimizes the chances for successful communication and ultimately an

effective negotiated agreement.

Much of the discussion to this point has focused on each individ-

ual element that enhances a negotiator’s ICC. Intercultural communi-

cation competency is both an individual-based and interaction-based

concept. The individual’s skills and predispositions may help him or

her achieve a higher level of competency, but it is the interaction that

occurs between the negotiating parties that ultimately determines ICC.

An individual can have all the training, knowledge, and motivation to

communicate, yet fail in communicating competently with another.

The interactional effect created by the two parties ultimately deter-

mines competency. Thus, although this chapter presents key factors in

optimizing ICC for the individual, we must always be cognizant of the

dynamics of discourse, especially in intercultural problem-solving set-

tings such as global business negotiations. Ultimately, ICC in the busi-ness negotiation is heavily reliant on the mutual understanding of the

172 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 172

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


negotiation process and the other person. In addition, we must also

recognize that communication competency is conceptualized differ-

ently in other cultures. We have addressed the common elements incommunicating in intercultural business negotiations. Sensitivity to

how different cultures conceptualize communication competency

within their own culture is always an important variable.

GUIDELINES FOR GLOBAL NEGOTIATION SUCCESS

There are 12 communication guidelines that should be followed

when entering into global business negotiations. Competency is the

most important factor for obtaining a successful agreement.

1. Do I have the necessary information about the other party’s

culture, individual style, and the negotiation process to com-

municate verbally and nonverbally in a sensitive, mindful,

appropriate manner?

2. Do I have the knowledge and the ability to listen for opportu-

nities for common ground to be established and shared inter-

ests to emerge?3. What is my level of competency in the other party’s native lan-

guage and interpretation of meaning?

4. How can I allow for face saving when conflict arises?

5. What face-saving strategies do I know how to use, and do I

know when to use them?

6. How do I establish a relationship with the other party, knowing

that relationship is interpreted differently in various cultures?

For example, formal, hierarchical structure is an important com-ponent of developing a working relationship in Japan; whereas

informal, equal status is assumed among various levels of

authority in the United States.

7. What goals do I want to achieve in the negotiation? Do I have a

diverse repertoire of strategies and tactics to facilitate a mean-

ingful discussion with the other party?

8. What role does silence play in the negotiation process?

9. What is my threshold level of uncertainty with negotiating withthe other party?


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 173

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


10. Do I have a wide range and number of behaviors and am

I comfortable using them?

11. Am I flexible in my behaviors?

12. Am I able to stay focused and present when I am interacting

with others without making judgments or evaluations?

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. What key factor is the most important to successful ICC?

Explain your answer.

2. How does face affect the communication competency of a global

negotiator?

3. What projections would you make about the role of ICC for the

next generation?

4. What are the critical components of individual success in the

international marketplace?

5. How can you best prepare for the evolving global marketplace?

6. What critical communication skills are necessary for interna-tional negotiation?

7. What difficulty lies ahead for those who remain focused on cul-

tural differences rather than individual differences?

REFERENCES

Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity:

An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis,

J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training(3rd ed., pp. 147–165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bennett, M. J., & Castiglioni, I. (2004). Embodied ethnocentrism and the feeling

of culture: A key to training for intercultural competence. In D. Landis,

J. Bennett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed.,

pp. 249–265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction

and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communi-

cation. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.

Bochner, A., & Kelly, C. (1974). Interpersonal competence: Rationale, philoso-

phy, and implementation of a conceptual framework. Speech Teacher, 23,279–301.

174 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 174

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (1994). The promise of mediation, responding to

conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cai, D. A., Wilson, S. R., & Drake, L. E. (2000). Culture in the context of inter-cultural negotiation: Individualism-collectivism and paths to integrative

agreements. Human Communication Research, 26, 591–617.

Chen, G., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A

synthesis. Communication Yearbook, 19, 353–383.

Cupach, W. R., & Canary, D. (Eds.). (1997). Competence in interpersonal conflict.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1993). Managing social predicaments created

by others: A comparison of Japanese and American facework. Western

Journal of Communication, 57, 431–444.

Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1981, February). Relational competence:

Measurement and validation. Paper presented at the Western Speech Com-

munication Association, San Jose, CA.

Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Trait versus state: A comparison of

dispositional and situational measures of interpersonal communication

competence. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 364–379.

Dolinina, I. B., & Cecchetto, V. (1998). Facework and rhetorical strategies in

intercultural argumentative discourse. Argumentation, 12(2), 117–135.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (Ed.). (1991). Getting to yes, negotiating agreement

without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ:

Doubleday.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication

(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (2005). Theorizing about intercultural communication.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (2000). Building cross-cultural compe-

tence: How to create wealth from conflicting values. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Hazleton, V., Jr., & Cupach, W. R. (1986). An exploration of ontological knowl-

edge: Communication competence as a function of the ability to describe,

predict, and explain. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 119–132.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-

related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of “face.” American Anthropologist, 46,

45–64.

Kim, M. (1993). Culture-based conversational constraints in explaining cross-

cultural strategic competence. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Inter-

cultural communication competence (pp. 132–150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kim, M. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of

conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21, 128–151.

Kim, M., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theoriesof requesting. Communication Monographs, 61, 210–235.


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 175

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication

and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Klopf, D. W. (2001). Intercultural encounters: The fundamentals of interculturalcommunication (5th ed.). Inglewood, CA: Morton.

Landis, D., Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of intercul-

tural training (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Martin, J. N., & Hammer, M. R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural

communication competence: Everyday communicators’ perceptions.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 303–332.

McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A.

Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence

and communication apprehension (pp. 13–38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McCroskey, J. C., Burroughs, N. F., Daun, A., & Richmond, V. P. (1990).

Correlates of quietness: Swedish and American perspectives. Communica-

tion Quarterly, 38(2), 127–137.

Morisaki, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States.

In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and inter-

personal issues (pp. 47–94). Albany: State University of New York.

Neuliep, J. W. (2003). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach

(2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., &

Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural compa-

rison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication

Monographs, 68(3), 235–258.

Parks, M. R. (1985). Interpersonal communication and the quest for personal

competence. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal

communication (pp. 171–201). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Phillips, G. M. (1983). A competent view of “competence.” Communication

Education, 32, 25–36.

Philipsen, G. (1992). Speaking culturally: Explorations in social communication.

New York: State University of New York at Albany Press.

Philipsen, G. (1997). Speech codes theory. In G. Philipsen & T. Albrecht (Eds.),

Developing theories of communication. New York: State University of NewYork at Albany Press.

Redmond, M. V. (2000). Cultural distance as a mediating factor between stress

and intercultural communication competence. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 24, 151–159.

Rubin, R. B. (1982). Assessing speaking and listening competence at the college

level: The communication competency assessment instrument. Communi-

cation Education, 31, 9–18.

Rubin, R. B. (1985). The validity of the communication competency assessment

instrument. Communication Monographs, 52, 173–185.

Salacuse, J. (1991). Making global deals. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

176 CHAPTER 6

06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 176

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


Snavely, W. B., & Walters, E. V. (1983). Differences in communication compe-

tence among administrator social styles. Journal of Applied Communication

Research, 11(2), 120–135.Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and

impression. Communication Education, 32, 323–329.

Spitzberg, B. H. (1991a). Intercultural communication competence. In L. A.

Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader

(pp. 353–365). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Spitzberg, B. H. (1991b). An examination of trait measures of interpersonal

competence. Communication Reports, 4(1), 22–30.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication compe-

tence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence

research. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W.

Gudykunst, L. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture,

and organizational processes (pp. 71–86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory.

In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communica-

tion (pp. 213–238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford

Press.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2004). Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into prac-

tice. In J. M. Bennett, M. J. Bennett, & D. Landis (Eds.), Handbook of inter-

cultural training (3rd ed., pp. 217–248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory.

In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Korzenny, F. (Ed.). (1989). Language, communication, and cul-

ture: Current directions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework, competence in intercultural

conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187–225.

Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communication com-petence. Human Communications Research, 3, 195–213.

Wilson, S. R., & Putnam, L. L. (1990). Interaction goals in negotiation. In J. A.

Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 13 (pp. 374–427). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 177

8/10/2019 14421_Chapter6.pdf


06-Rudd.qxd 2/12/2007 10:40 AM Page 178

14421_Chapter6.pdf

Documents